On-table reconstruction of comminuted fractures of the radial head

The most widely accepted treatment for comminuted fractures of the radial head is either the excision or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the value of an 'on-table' reconstruction technique in severely comminuted fractures of the radial head. In this study, two patients with a Mason type-III and four patients with a Mason type-IV radial-head fracture were treated with 'on-table' reconstruction and fixation using low-profile mini-plates. After a mean follow-up of 112 months (47-154 months), the mean elbow motion was 0-6-141 degrees extension flexion with 79 degrees of pronation and 70 degrees of supination. The mean Broberg and Morrey functional rating score was 97.0 points, the Mayo Elbow Performance Index was 99.2 points and the mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Outcome Measure score was 1.94 points. One patient had symptoms of degenerative changes, with a slight joint-space narrowing. There were no radiographic signs of devitalisation at final examination. Comminuted fractures of the radial head, which would otherwise require excision, can be successfully treated with an 'on-table' reconstruction technique.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: relevant pathophysiological findings with open surgery

BACKGROUND Traditionally arthrotomy has rarely been performed during surgery for slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). As a result, most pathophysiological information about the articular surfaces was derived clinically and radiographically. Novel insights regarding deformity-induced damage and epiphyseal perfusion became available with surgical hip dislocation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES We (1) determined the influence of chronicity of prodromal symptoms and severity of SCFE deformity on severity of cartilage damage. (2) In surgically confirmed disconnected epiphyses, we determined the influence of injury and time to surgery on epiphyseal perfusion; and (3) the frequency of new bone at the posterior neck potentially reducing perfusion during epimetaphyseal reduction. METHODS We reviewed 116 patients with 119 SCFE and available records treated between 1996 and 2011. Acetabular cartilage damage was graded as +/++/+++ in 109 of the 119 hips. Epiphyseal perfusion was determined with laser-Doppler flowmetry at capsulotomy and after reduction. Information about bone at the posterior neck was retrieved from operative reports. RESULTS Ninety-seven of 109 hips (89%) had documented cartilage damage; severity was not associated with higher slip angle or chronicity; disconnected epiphyses had less damage. Temporary or definitive cessation of perfusion in disconnected epiphyses increased with time to surgery; posterior bone resection improved the perfusion. In one necrosis, the retinaculum was ruptured; two were in the group with the longest time interval. Posterior bone formation is frequent in disconnected epiphyses, even without prodromal periods. CONCLUSIONS Addressing the cause of cartilage damage (cam impingement) should become an integral part of SCFE surgery. Early surgery for disconnected epiphyses appears to reduce the risk of necrosis. Slip reduction without resection of posterior bone apposition may jeopardize epiphyseal perfusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, retrospective case series. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.